Limbaugh and Black get the Goods on Brischer

The Rush Limbaugh Website ^ | 1-26-04 | Rush Limbaugh

[GodBlessUSA]

I agree with you. I don't doubt nor surprised that there are flaws and corruption involved in some cases. I admit I’m disappointed that there is not more outrage.

I was directing this to those that actual defend the prosecutor’s behavior regardless of whether or not it is proper or legal. This case is such a blatant obvious attack of a citizen’s rights and the case is nationally publicized. Some condone what's going on here and are fine with how it’s being handled. They believe the propaganda machine and defend the prosecution. In some posts, I read, Rush is guilty of something so basically the sentiment is it’s ok to go beyond the normal procedures. Let’s go after him whether it's the right, wrong or legal to do so.

[USNBandit]

I disagree slightly. The big losers in the crackdown on prescription pain meds won't be the abusers. They will continue to get their pills like Mr Limbaugh did. The big losers will be those who really need Oxycontin and can't get it. That is you, who have a need for pain meds, but can't get them from doctors because they fear falling under suspicion of the DEA. It is also the person that follows a surgeon's orders to go to the emergency room during non-working hours if they can't control their pain. They are immediately labeled as a drug seeking freak and don't get the help they need.

Case in point: My wife was prescribed Oxycontin by a doctor who prescribed her three pills a day, gave her a five day supply and wasn't going to see her for a week. When she tried to get more to cover her to the next visit, the doctor's staff denied her a prescription. The ironic thing was that while Oxycontin is highly monitored, Methadone isn't. The same doctor had given her a prescription for 180 methadone tablets, which she couldn't tolerate, but wouldn't prescribe her ten more Oxycontin. Fortunately, my wife recovered.

What I disagree with is that Mr Limbaugh was just trying to get relief for his pain. He has already admitted that he is an addict. That makes him part of the problem, one of those people that hurts your ability to get the drugs you need. This is not a holier than thou attitude on my part. I have also been on pain meds after an accident from which I, fortunately, recovered. While I did not become dependent on pain meds I have tasted their allure. Fortunately, I had a stronger motivation to go back to work than seek drugs. Unfortunately, Mr. Limbaugh continued to seek out those drugs instead of seeking help. I would imagine this whole thing would have come off better for him if he had checked himself into a clinic before his domestic staff began supplying his habit and blackmailing him. You better than most people should understand Limbaugh's problem, but I would submit that people like him hurt people like you.

[balrog666]

My Dog Likes Me

Wow, even your dog has bad taste.

[NYCVirago]

Matthew Perry is the better example. I believe most celebrities who come forward with addictions are "caught" in possession or breaking other laws, like driving under the influence. Matthew Perry self-reported his abuse and recovery (-ies?) and was never caught by the police for anything. That is Rush's situation.

Good points. This is really unprecented for the prosecutors to be swooping down on Rush. And, to talk like a liberal here for a sec, won't this kind of action (e.g. prosecuting somebody who admitted his addiction to legal painkillers) prevent others from getting the help they need for treatment? You know if this were a liberal the prosecutors were going after, that this is what they'd be saying!

[E.G.C.]

I think what he said was that he was going to play excerpts from Sean Hannity's interview with his attorney Roy Black later today on his show so as to shed some light on what's going on.

Yesterday's press conference with Black wasn't carried because of all the stuff going on in New Hamphsire.

[Yaelle]

won't this kind of action (e.g. prosecuting somebody who admitted his addiction to legal painkillers) prevent others from getting the help they need for treatment?

Liberals and conservatives can agree on that one! It will push addiction back into the closet and less people will get help. More will die, and more will kill others in traffic accidents. All to stop the little boy (Rush) from telling the world that the emperor (liberals) has no clothes on.

Liberals think that people dying so that they can attain power is worth it. They have as much respect for life as does the average suicide bomber.

Maybe that's what we should rightly call it: a jihad against Rush.

[Lady Eileen]

bump..for Rush.

[CyberAnt]

Exactly!

[TKDietz]

I won't defend the prosecutor because like many prosecutors I've dealt with over the years, he's a jerk with ulterior motives. But overall I think this whole incident is a good thing. First off, Rush is not going to be hurt by this. The guy is a zillionaire and he's smart enough to turn this into something he can get a lot of mileage from on his show. I wouldn't be surprised to see this whole thing make his ratings go up. Even if he is convicted of felonies he's not going to do any time, and he can afford the fines and costs. And having this all out in the open is going to help him combat his drug problem.

This episode could have a lot further impact than what I've talked about above in that it's going to cause a lot of people to have to look at things differently. For one thing it illustrates that prosecutors aren't always such ethical creatures with pure motives and from the standpoint of a criminal defense attorney, we like that potential jurors and those who elect these people be cognizant of this. Also, this can only have a positive impact on the way we view and treat drug addicts in this country. For instance, I don't think it will hurt at all for people to see just how easy it is to get a felony conviction for low-level victimless drug crimes. I think people will be amazed when they see how many people out there have felony records simply because they went through a period of addiction to prescription drugs and it got so bad that they started using fraudulent mean to obtain these drugs. I hope people start to see how stupid it is to give people felonies for any simple possession or trying just to get drugs for personal use. Because if Rush Limbaugh is charged and convicted of a felony he'll become just one of millions given felonies for low-level drug crimes. Lucky for him the felony record won't make it difficult for him to live in a decent apartment and eke out an honest living.

[holdonnow]

http://www.landmarklegal.org/tickerstory.cfm?webpage_id=568

http://www.landmarklegal.org/tickerstory.cfm?webpage_id=569

[connectthedots]

I'm a criminal defense attorney and what I hope that people get out of things like this is a little more rounded outlook when they are called to sit in the jury box. Don't just take for granted that that nice prosecuting attorney standing before you or that nice police officer sitting on the stand testifying are honest, fair and ethical people who will always shoot you straight. Some of these people are more crooked than the defendants or even their attorneys ;-) .

I used to have a very low opinion of criminal defense attorneys, UNTIL I started having dealings with prosecutors. I am in the process of attempting to get my local prosecutor to prosecute a deputy sheriff which the prosecutor even admitted in a pleading that the deputy committed a felony against me. He says it would be 'unethical' for him to prosecute under the circumstances. the circumstances are that if this deputy was prosecuted, the prosecutor would wind up going to prison as well.

[connectthedots]

Are you as naive about other things, as well.

[connectthedots]

Anyone who blindly accepts the premise that prosecutors are ethical has not dealt with many prosecutors.

[CyberAnt]

I have one question .. isn't the USC an indicator that the statute is federal .. and therefore might only apply to federal agencies .. not state agencies. And .. is there a comparable state statute which might also apply ..??

[xm177e2]

I don't understand any of you. Rush didn't need 4 docs to give him pain meds.

No, he didn't. He apparently went to four doctors to get lots of pain meds because he was an addict.

My point is that pain medication addicts are not punished so harshly as Rush--he is being persecuted because of his political beliefs.

[CyberAnt]

Wow! One of my son's was born at a hospital in Mt. View.

But .. you confirm the statements of the test I was referencing. When people are allowed to medicate themselves, they will be less likely to overdose.

[CyberAnt]

Really ..?? You don't consider impeachment a penalty ..??

Maybe the Senators wouldn't vote Clinton out of office, but the "IMPEACHMENT" tag will follow Clinton the rest of his life .. the ONLY American President ever impeached. The vote in the House said YOU'RE GUILTY!!

But .. because POWER is more important to democrats than justice .. they opted to keep Clinton in office.

[johnb838]

But Rush's case is a perfect example of the conundrum. To treat pain adequately, you run the risk of addiction. If you get addiction, you wind up with a patient still on the meds 8 years down the road and doing whatever is necessary to get the drugs. I had major back surgery. I understand all about the pain -- and mine worked, so eventually it stopped hurting. But this is a very difficult question.

[Imal]

But this isn't a perfect world, and as Rush dances on the roof of his SUV while his fans cheer, I, in a similar position, would be pleading on a nasty phone through plexiglass for my public defender not to leave me in the county lock-up for another month.

Welcome to the Free Republic. While this is of course a forum for opinions as well as discussion of news and current events, not all opinions are created equal.

Referring to unspecified "charges" and making statements like this identify you as a person whose opinions are unfettered by facts or reality.

It's as if you are addressing a different topic, and is a puzzling non-sequitur for anyone who has actually been following this story. This is analogous to a child interrupting an adult conversation with an irrelevant remark in a desperate effort to get attention.

In case you missed it: Rush Limbaugh has not been charged with any crime at all. So why are you talking about Rush dancing on his SUV and the "county lock-up"? Remarkable.

Until you learn to address the actual topic of a thread, and display a modicum of familiarity with it, you can count on all the respect and attention your baseless opinions merit.

[TKDietz]

I will not name names but I will say that I am an attorney and I have clients right now who are still being prosecuted after they went to rehab and I have clients in rehab right now hoping the prosecutor will take into consideration that they are getting help for their problem. It is common for people accused of drug crimes to seek rehab.

Now, I do not represent anyone who hasn't been charged with a crime yet, but I don't see a great deal of difference in cases where the person has already been charged and a case where someone who is obviously under suspicion of a crime takes steps that might help him if he is charged. I can see how a prosecutor could reasonably argue that the rehab was too little too late.

Don't get me wrong though, I think this prosecutor is going extra hard on Rush because he is Rush. I'm just trying to correct a misconception you have. I don't know what makes you think prosecutors are all such kind caring people or that the laws are set up to go easy on drug addicts who seek help. I live in a part of the country where low level drug offenders often receive harsher treatment than people who have done much worse crimes like sex offenses, aggravated assaults, thefts and so on. Some of the prosecutors around here might be swayed by the fact that a drug defendant has gotten treatment, others would say the guy should have gotten the treatment before he got caught. I can hear them making the comparison now about how wife beaters should get the anger management classes before they beat their wives, or how the hot check writer should have taken credit counseling before she wrote all the hot checks.

You woefully misinformed about the way low level drug crimes are handled in this country. I'm not faulting you for that because you probably never had a reason to know much about how these cases are handled but it's good that you understanding of these things is being challenged now and I hope you'll take a little time to look into the way low level drug crimes are treated in America. I think you will be surprised at what you will learn and I think it's always good when people finally see how crazy our drug laws and enforcement of them can be in this country. That's the only way we'll ever get them reformed.